TREASURt  ROOM 


George  Washington  Flowers 
Memorial  Collection 

DUKE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 

ESTABLISHED  BY  THE 
FAMILY  OF 
COLONEL  FLOWERS 

Treasure  \ 


AN 


ESSAV 

ON 

DUELLING. 


BY  WILLIAM  JAY, 

OF   BEDFORD,  :^2Vr-Y0IlK4 


fiOH  WniCH  TUP,  GOLD  MSBAL  WAS  AVTAHDID,  BY  THtn 


SAVANNAH; 

rtJBLISUED  DT  OUBETl  OF  TUE  ASSOCIATICjr, 


1829, 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2014 


https://archive.org/details/essayonduellingOOjayw 


At  the  Anniversary  of  the  Savannah  Anii-Duel- 
ling  Association,  on  the  8tli,  of  January,  1828,  the 
following  resolution  was  passed. 

Resolved^  That  a  premium  of  Fifty  Dollars,  or  a 
Gold  Medal  of  that  value,  be  offered  hy  this  Associa- 
tion for  the  best  Essay  on  Duelling,  and  that  a  Com- 
mittee be  appointed  to  circulate  a  notice  of  the  same, 
and  to  decide  upon  the  merits  of  such  essays  as  may 
be  presented.    The  Committee  appointed  are  : 

JOHN  GUMMING,  JAMES  M.  WAYNE,  R.  W.  HABERSHAM, 
WILLIAM  LAW,  &  M    H.  MCALLISTER. 

At  a  meeting  of  tlie  Association  on  the  15th,  Jan, 
1829,  the  Committee  reported  that  tweniy-one  Essays 
had  been  received  by  C.  W.  Rockwell,  Esq.  the 
Secretary,  the  merits  of  several  of  which  would  well 
entitle  them  to  publication,  but  that  the  funds  of  the  So- 
ciety are  inadequate  to  authoris  e  it.  Three  of  the  essays 
were  by  unanimous  consent  selected,  to  be  put  in  com- 
petition for  the  premium,  and  the  one  to  which  it  has 
been  awarded,  is  discovered  to  be  the  pr(»ductioa  of 
Mr.  William  Jay,  of  Bedford,  in  the  State  of  \ew- 
York.  1  he  Committee  recommend  that  it  be  published. 

Extract  from  the  Minutes, 

CHS.  W.  KOCKWELL, 

becty* 


AN  ESSAY  ON  DUELLING. 


The  aitempt  to  remove  ancient  and  widely  extended 
prejudices,  although  arduous,  is  not  always  hopeless. 
The  opinions  of  mankind,  like  their  works,  are  seldom 
permanent,  and  the  acquisition  of  knowledge,  frequent- 
ly constrains  us  to  abandon  long  cherished  opinions, 
and  to  adopt  very  different  ones  in  their  place. 

Keligious  toleration,  which  is  now  so  generally  ad- 
mitted to  be  the  right  of  all,  was  at  one  time  supposed 
to  be  contrary  to  the  precepts  of  Christianity  ;  and  the 
magistrate  was  exhorted  to  use  his  sword,  for  the  de- 
struction of  heresy.  That  our  intercourse  with  the 
Aborigines  of  our  country,  ought  to  be  governed  by  the 
principles  of  justice  and  liumanity,  will  at  the  present 
day,  be  denied  by  none:  but  such  an  admission,  howev- 
er true  and  obvious,  is  comparatively  novel.  In  1755, 
the  Colony  of  Massachusetts,  being  at  war  with  cer- 
tain Indian  tribes,  Governor  Shirley,  with  the  appro- 
bation of  both  Houses  of  the  Legislature,  issued  a 


6 


proclamation,  oiTerin^^  a  bounty  of  ^£20,  for  the  scalps 
of  Indian  children  under  the  age  of  twelve  years 
No  individual  would  now  dare  to  insult  the  moral 
sense  of  the  community,  by  proposing  a  measure  so 
attrocious.  In  the  almost  universal  abolition  and  ex- 
ecration of  the  slave  trade,  a  trade  which  the  con- 
stitution of  our  country  specially  protected  till  with- 
in the  last  twenty  years,  and  which  our  laws  now  pun- 
ish with  death,  we  have  another  striking  instance  of 
the  triumph  of  education  and  religious  influence, 
over  long  established,  and  even  interested  prejudices. 
These  examples,  and  others  that  might  be  adduced,  of 
radical  changes  in  public  opinion,  encourage  us  to 
hope  that  the  time  may  arrive  when  the  duellist  will 
share  in  the  contempt  and  abhorrence  to  which  the 
slave  trade  is  now  consigned. 

Public  sentiment  in  a  free  country  will  ever  be  om- 
nipotent, and  when  rightly  directed,  will  prove  more 
efficacious  in  correcting  erroneous  opinions  and  prac- 
tices, than  all  the  penalties  that  law  can  inflict.  No 
sooner  shall  public  sentiment  unequivocally  declare 
itself  hostile  to  duelling,  than  this  relic  of  barbarism 
will  vanish ;  for  duellists  themselves,  will  quail  be- 
neath its  frown.  Every  effort  therefore,  however  fee- 
ble, to  draw  the  attention  of  the  public  to  the  evils  of 
duelling,  may  have  some  influence  in  promoting  its 
suppression.  When  the  community  generally  are  con- 
vinced that  this  practice  is  both  wicked  and  absurd, 
they  will  cease  to  countenance  it.  This  conviction 
however  is  to  be  effected,  not  by  angry  declamation;  or 

•See  the  New  York  Mercury  of  25d.  July  1755, 


7 


personal  invective,  but  by  calm  and  frequent  appeals 
to  the  understanding  and  the  conscience. 

While  the  immorality  of  duelling  is  generally  ad- 
mitted, the  extent  and  nature  of  its  sinfulness  is  as 
generally  overlooked  ;  and  many  who  condemn  it  in 
principle,  still  regard  it  as  an  evil  which  the  state  of 
society  renders  unavoidable,  and  therefore  excusable. 
To  him  who  makes  the  revelation  of  his  Maker,  the 
rule  of  his  conduct,  arguments  are  unnecessary  to 
prove,  that  it  can  never  be  right  to  yield  obedience  to 
the  customs  of  men,  rather  than  to  the  commands  of  God. 

Unfortunately  however,  there  are  many  who  have 
not  been  led  by  education  or  reflection  to  apply  the 
precepts  of  the  Bible,  to  duelling.  It  may  be  useful  to 
direct  the  attention  of  such  persons,  to  the  plain  and 
positive  injunctions,  and  the  awful  denunciations  of 
the  sacred  volume. 

All  false  religions  have  been  accomodated  to  the 
corrupt  passions  of  their  votaries,  but  the  religion  of 
the  Bible,  proceeding  from  a  Being  no  less  infinite  in 
holiness,  than  in  wisdom  and  power,  is  intended  to 
control,  and  not  to  gratify  our  evil  propensities — pro- 
pensities which  cannot  be  indulged,  without  impairing 
our  present,  and  endangering  our  future  happiness. — 
Hence  one  striking  peculiarity  of  this  religion,  is  its 
prohibition  of  all  malevolence,  hevenge,  which  by 
the  nations  of  antiquity  was  regarded  as  nearly  allied 
to  virtue,  is  by  the  religion  of  the  Bible  denounced  as 
a  crime,  and  we  are  solemnly  assured,  ^*if  ye  forgive 
not  men  their  trespasses,  neither  will  your  Father  for- 
give you;  your  trespasses, We  are  urged  to  the  ex- 


8 


crcise  of  benevolence  towards  others,  by  the  consid- 
eration  of  the  divine  goodness  towards  ourselves.  ^*Be 
ye  kind  one  to  another,  tender  hearted,  forgiving  onc- 
another,  even  as  God  for  Christ^'^  sake  hath  forgiven 
you."  *'If  any  man  have  a  quarrel  against  any,  eveu 
as  Christ  forgave  you,  so  do  ye.''  As  forgiveness  of 
injuries  is  thus  enjoined,  so  of  course  revenge  is  forbid- 
den. ^^Sec  that  none  render  evil  for  evil  against  any 
man.''  ^'Dearly  beloved,  avenge  not  yourselves,  but 
rather  give  place  unto  wrath,  for  it  is  written,  veil- 
geance  is  mine,  I  will  repay  saith  the  Lord." 

Not  only  does  the  Gospel  inculcate  forgiveness  of 
injuries,  but  with  a  sublimity  of  doctrine  peculiarly  its 
own,  and  which  indicates  its  divine  origin,  it  requires 
us  even  to  love  our  enemies,  to  do  good  to  them  that 
hate  us,  and  to  pray  for  them  which  despitefully  use 
us,  and  persecute  us  ;  and  it  enforces  these  commands 
by  this  beautiful  and  affecting  illustration,  '^That  ye 
maybe  the  children  of  your  Father  which  is  in  heav- 
en, for  He  maketh  His  sun  to  shine  on  the  evil  and 
the  good,  and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and  the  unjust." 
These  texts,  and  many  more  that  might  be  cited,  prove 
that  forgiveness  of  injuries,  is  required  of  us,  not  mere- 
ly as  a  duty,  but  as  an  indispensable  condition  of  the 
pardon  of  our  own  offences.  It  therefore  deeply  con- 
cerns the  duellist  to  inquire,  whether  he  can  reconcile 
the  passions  which  drive  him  to  the  field,  with  these 
great  and  solemn  precepts  of  the  Bible;  whether  he  can 
take  the  life  of  his  enemy,  and  still  hope  to  ])e  forgiven. 

Not  only  are  the  passions  indulged  by  the  duellist, 
forbidden,  but  the  very  act  to  w^hich  they  prompt  him, 


9 

is  prohibited  in  the  most  express  terms,  and  under  the 
most  awful  denunciations.    One  of  the  reasons  assign- 
ed for  the  destruction  of  the  antediluvian  world  was^ 
that  it  was  '^filled  with  violence,"  and  one  of  the  first 
commands  given  by  the  Almighty,  after  the  waters  of 
the  di'luge  had  proclaimed  him  an  avenging  God,  was, 
"whoso  sheddeth  man's  blood,  by  man  shall  his  blood 
be  shed.'^    The  injunction  ^Hhou  shalt  not  kill,'^  was 
announced  by  the  voice  of  the  Deity  himself  amid  the 
sublime  terrors  of  ISinai,  and  by  his  hand  twice  engra- 
ven on  stone.    The  Jewish  go>^ernment  was  a  theoc- 
racy, and  the  laws  relating  to  murder  mark  the  ab- 
horrence in  which  this  crime  was  held  by  the  divine 
lawgiver;  ^•Ye  shall  take  no  satisfaction  for  the  life  of 
a  murderer ;  he  shall  surely  be  put  to  death.^^  Blood 
defileth  the  land,  and  the  land  cannot  be  cleansed  of 
the  blood  that  is  shed  therein^  but  by  the  blood  of  him 
that  shed  it."    The  sanctions  of  the  Mosaic  laws  were 
geneially  of  a  temporal  nature,  and  it  was  reserved  for 
the  Gospf  1  to  vindicate  the  divine  sovereignty,  by 
withdrawing  the  veil  which  concealed  the  future  world, 
and  exhibiting  the  penalties  intlicted  there,  for  the 
transgressions  committed  here.     The  declarations, 
"no  murderer  hath  eternal  life  abiding  in  him,  " 
and  "murderers  shall  not  inherit  eternal  life/'  derive 
a  most  impressive  confirmation  from  the  suil^lime  vis- 
ion in  the  Apocalypse,  in  which  Christ  i-s  represented 
as  sitting  on  his  throne,  and  proclaiming  "He  that  o- 
vercometh  shall  inherit  all  tilings,  and  I  will  be  his 
God,  and  he  sluU  be  mj  son ;  but  murderers  shall 
have  their  part  in  the  lake  that  burnetii  with  fire  and 
brimstone;  which  is  the  second  death." 

B 


10 


Were  we  not  acquainted  with  the  deceitfulness  of 
die  human  hearty  we  should  imagine  it  impossible 
that  any  one  who  acknowledges  the  scriptures  as  a 
divine  revelation,  should  ever  venture  to  engage  in  a 
duel ;  and  yet  it  would  not  consist  with  candor  to  as- 
sert, that  every  duellist  is  an  infidel ;  or  that  when 
advancing  to  the  field,  he  abandons  all  expectation  of 
happiness  beyond  the  grave.  That  the  great  mass  of 
duellists  are  at  least  practical  infidels,  and  are  reck* 
less  of  future  retribution,  is  abundantly  evinced  by  the 
general  tenor  of  their  lives  :  s(ill  there  are  many,  who 
while  they  profess  a  belief  in  the  Bible,  and  hope  to 
participate  in  the  blessings  it  reveals,  nevertheless  re- 
gard duelling  as  an  offence,  for  which  circumstances 
"wiW  afford  a  sufficient  apology.  Such  persons  will 
not  readily  consent  to  apply  to  duelling,  the  denuncia- 
tions of  scripture  against  murder.  But  however  un- 
"Willing  they  may  be  to  incur  the  guilt  and  odium  of 
murder,  both  the  language  of  the  Bible,  and  the  plain 
common  sense  of  mankind,  unite  in  giving  this  name  to 
th^ir  crime ;  and  the  laws,  not  only  of  our  own,  but  of 
every  civilized  country,  regard  the  man  who  kills  his 
antagonist  in  a  duel,  as  a  murderer. 

It  may  however  be  asked,  if  the  duellist  be  in  fact 
a  murderer,  why  is  he  not  abhorred  and  treated  as 
such?  to  this  it  may  he  replied,  that  as  respects  the 
Deity,  so  fat  as  wq  can  form  an  opinion  from  the  rev- 
elation He  has  been  pleased  to  make  of  his  will,  we 
are  constrained  to  believe^  that  by  Him  the  duellist  is 
abhorred  and  treated  as  a  murderer.  It  is  true,  that 
various  causes  have  combined  Ko  induce  mankind  ia 


11 


general,  to  view  this  species  of  murder  with  more  in* 
duigence  tlian  assassination.  The  antiquity  of  the 
practice,  the  rank  usually  held  in  society  by  those  who 
engage  in  it,  and  above  all,  the  personal  danger  with 
which  it  is  accompanied,  tend  to  divest  duelling  of  a 
large  portion  of  that  atrocity  and  cowardly  baseness, 
which  most  frequently  belong  to  assassination.  But 
a  little  reflection  will  convince  us,  that  these  circum- 
stances  can  have  little,  if  any  effect,  in  mitigating  it^ 
moral  guilt.  If  duelling  is  to  be  excused  on  account 
of  the  length  of  time  it  has  been  practised,  so  may 
fratricide;  since  it  occurred  in  the  first  family  on  earth. 
The  rank  of  an  offender,  may  to  a  certain  degree,  ex* 
empt  his  crime  from  the  reproach  of  vulgarity,  but  it 
cannot  diminish  his  guilt  in  the  view  of  that  Being, 
who  is  no  respecter  of  persons.  Nor  can  we  suppose 
that  the  general  prevalence  of  any  crime,  will  be  re- 
garded as  an  apology  for  its  commission,  by  that  holy 
and  jealous  God  who  brought  a  deluge  on  a  guilty 
w  orld,  and  rained  down  fire  upon  the  cities  of  the 
plain.  Still  less  can  we  imagine  that  the  publicity 
and  audacity  of  a  crime,  can  extenuate  its  sinfulness. 
Admitting  every  duellist  to  be  brave,  it  cannot  be  de- 
nied, that  courage,  so  far  from  being  a  virtue,  is  often 
associated  with  the  vilest  and  most  detestable  actions. 
In  the  revolt  of  Satan  we  have  an  instance  of  despe- 
rate daring — a  recklessness  of  consequences  to  which 
human  exploits  can  afford  no  parallel.  The  pirate  and 
the  highwayman,  often  encounter  perils  from  which 
most  duellists  would  shrink  with  terror.  Every  duellist 
hopes  to  escape  with  impunity^  and  his  courage  there^ 


12 


fore,  is  vac^tiy  inferior  to  that  of  tiiose,  who,  to  gratify 
their  revenge,  rash  upon  certain  death.  There  are 
many  instances,  in  which  assassins  have  given  the  fa- 
tal bL>w  under  circumstances,  which  they  well  knew 
would  inevitably  consign  them  to  a  painful  and  igno- 
minous  execution :  such  high  resolve,  firmness  of 
nerve,  and  contempt  of  pain  and  death,  are  unequal 
led  in  the  annals  of  duelling ;  and  if  these  qualities 
are  in  themselves  deserving  of  applause,  the  most  de- 
termined duellist  must  yield  the  palm,  to  such  assas- 
sins as  Ravalliac  and  Fenton. 

In  a  question  of  so  much  moment,  as  whether  duel- 
ling is  oris  not  murder- — a  question  involving  interests 
more  enduring  than  time,  and  sufferings  and  enjoy- 
ments surpassing  human  imagination — it  becomes  us  to 
lay  aside  all  idle  declamation,  and  all  the  prejudices 
derived  from  the  customs  and  associations  of  the  world, 
and  U)  bring  the  inquiry  to  the  only  sure  tests, — reas- 
on and  scripture. 

It  is  true  that  duellists,  occasionally,  while  they  ex- 
pose their  own  lives,  refuse  to  take  those  of  their  oppo- 
nents; but  these  are  such  rare  exceptions  to  the  gener- 
al practice,  that  we  need  not  now  examine  them ;  and 
even  in  these  cases,  if  the  guilt  of  murder  be  avoided, 
that  of  suicide  is  incurred. 

It  will  be  admitted,  that  the  immediate  object  of  two 
persons  engaged  in  a  duel,  whatever  may  be  their  pro- 
pelling motives,  is  to  kill  each  other  :  by  the  common 
consent  and  understanding  of  mankind,  the  deliberate 
and  malicious  taking  of  human  life,  is  murder  :  it  is 
in  vain  therefore  to  urge  the  antiquity,  and  the  general 


1«J 

prevalence  of  the  practice,  or  the  customs  of  society, 
to  distinguish  duelling  from  murder.  Nor  can  the 
personal  danger  to  which  the  duellist  exposes  hims  df, 
make  the  distinction :  it  would  be  an  insult  to  any 
court^  to  contend,  that  the  soldier  who  had  shot  his 
oflicer  on  parade,  had  not  committed  murder  because 
the  time  and  place  he  had  selected  for  perpetrating  the 
act,  proved  that  he  had  voluntarily  placed  his  own  life 
in  jeopardy.  Equally  absurd  would  it  be  to  agree, 
that  killing  a  person  in  a  duel  was  not  murder,  be- 
cause the  party  slain  had  consented  to  his  own  death. 
So  far  is  this  from  being  true  in  fact,  that  duellists  of- 
ten resort  to  expedients  to  save  their  lives.  But  ad- 
mitting the  assertion,  yet  no  man  by  his  mere  consent, 
can  justify  another  in  taking  his  life ;  and  he  who 
should  aid  in  the  commission  of  suicide,  would  un- 
questionably be  adjudged  a  murderer. 

The  only  plea  in  behalf  of  duelling  that  is  not  obvi- 
ously false  and  absurd,  is,  that  it  is  practised,  not  for 
revenge,  but  in  self  defence.  This  plea  merits,  and 
shall  receive,  a  full  and  candid  examination.  The 
moral  sense  of  mankind,  revolts  at  the  sacrifice  of  hu- 
man life  for  the  gratification  of  revenge,  and  the  perpe- 
trator, is  in  every  civilized  country,  doomed  to  an  ig- 
nominious death.  It  is  not  therefore  surprising  that 
duellists  should  disavow  motives,  that  would  reduce 
them  to  the  level  of  the  vilest  felons,  and  expose  them 
to  the  execration  of  their  fellow-men ;  hence  they  seek 
to  excuse  themselves  by  an  alledged  obligation  to 
obey,  w  hat  they  are  pleased  to  call,  the  laws  of  honor ; 
and  by  the  right  and  duty  of  preserving  even  at  the 


14 


cost  of  another's  life,  a  reputation,  on  which,  they  af- 
firm, their  future  usefulness  and  happiness^  and  even 
personal  security  depend. 

Wlien  however  we  come  to  investigate  the  origin, 
and  attending  circumstances,  of  most  duels,  we  shall 
be  disposed  to  question  the  sincerity  of  this  disclaimer 
of  malignant  motives.  All  duels  are  founded  on  an 
alledged  injury  received,  and  the  offending  party  is 
required  to  give  '^satisfaction/'  as  it  is  called,  by 
allowing  the  person  aggrieved  an  opportunity  of  taking 
his  life.  It  is  certainly  difficult  to  discriminate  be- 
tween such  a  demand,  and  a  desire  for  revenge  ;  and 
still  more  so,  to  reconcile  the  demand  itself,  with 
those  divine  precepts,  of  long  suffering  and  forgiveness, 
which  have  been  already  cited.  It  is  not  pretended 
that  the  laws  of  honor,  sanguinary  as  they  are,  require 
more,  than  that  each  party  should  give  proof  of  his 
courage  by  hazarding  his  life,  and  after  this  proof  has 
been  given,  a  reconciliation  is  permitted  If  then,  du- 
ellists act  only  in  obedience  to  these  laws,  and  are  not 
impelled  by  revenge,  how  comes  it  that  each  party  so 
generally  aims  at  the  other,  and  that  after  a  fire  has 
been  given  and  received,  and  of  course  the  requisitions 
of  honor  fully  satisfied,  the  combat  is  often  prolonged, 
till  one  or  the  other  is  disabled  ?  Instances  have  oc- 
curred, in  which  the  parties,  in  the  interval  between 
the  challenge  and  the  duel,  have  practised  in  shooting 
at  a  mark,  to  ensure  a  more  deadly  aim.  It  is  difficult 
to  imagine  a  stronger  proof  than  this,  of  what  the  la\V 
denominates  malice  prepense;^  a  cool  deliberate  inten- 
tion of  taking  life,  and  a  calculating  use  of  the  requis* 


15 


ite  means.  In  such  cases,  it  would  be  folly  to  deny  the 
existence  of  a  fixed  purpose  of  revenge;  and  although 
the  evidence  of  malice  may  nut  be  equally  obvious  ia 
every  instance,  yet  the  fact,  that  the  duellist  deliberate- 
ly endeavours  to  take  the  life  of  bis  enemy,  after  hav- 
ing calmly  made  his  preperations  for  the  purpose,  af 
ter  having  advised  with  a  friend  on  the  subject,  and 
after  having  entertained  the  design  for  days,  and  some- 
times for  months,  affords  proof  of  settled  malice,  more 
strong  and  conclusive,  than  is  usually  offered  in  trials 
for  murder ;  and  if  such  proof  is  to  be  rejected,  then  all 
the  rules  of  evidence  by  which  human  tribunals  are 
guided,  and  by  which  we  are  accustomed  to  judge  of 
the  conduct  of  our  fellow- men,  are  vague  and  decep- 
tive. Let  not  the  duellist  then  flatter  himself,  that 
while  his  hands  are  imbrued  in  his  brother's  bloody 
his  heart  is  unpolluted  by  malice — 0  let  him  not  ven- 
ture his  all,  on  a  conceit  so  vain  and  delusive. 

It  must  not  be  supposed  that  the  preceding  remarks 
apply  only  to  him  who  seeks  the  combat,  and  that  he 
who  merely  accepts  a  challenge,  is  exempted  from  the 
charge  of  malice,  and  the  guilt  of  murder.  The  chal* 
lenge  is  given  for  a  real  or  supposed  injury  received : 
if  the  injury  be  real,  the  malice  that  prompted  it  must 
be  greatly  aggravated  by  the  infliction  of  a  still  great- 
er injury,  the  taking  of  life  itself.  He  who  fiirst  insults 
or  slanders  his  neighbour,  and  then  attempts  to  shed 
his  blood,  will  in  vain  plead,  that  he  is  free  from  all 
jnalignant  feelings.  Admitting  however  that  no  real 
or  intentional  injury  had  been  committed,  the  chal- 
lenger in  such  a  case  obviously  labours  under  a  mis- 


16 


take  and  by  tlie  code  of  duellists  themselves  ;  an 
explanation,  or  a  disclaimer  of  oSTeusive  intentions^ 
renders  a  combat  unnecessary.  Yet  the  party  clial- 
lenged,  ratlicr  than  condescend  to  speak  the  truth,  de- 
liberately aims  his  ^veapou  at  the  life  of  a  man  who 
lias  given  him  no  cause  for  oifence  ;  and  the  apology 
offered  for  this  art  is,  that  it  m  as  not  prompted  by  irri- 
tated passions  or  violent  provocations,  but  solely  by  a 
wish  to  avoid  all  suspicion  of  a  v/ant  of  courage.  He 
who  challenges  his  opponent;  may  at  least  plead  the 
vehemence  of  his  passions,  and  the  outrages  he  has 
suffered  ;  but  he  who  accepts  it,  is  destitue  of  even  this 
poor  excuse^  and  the  malignity  of  his  heart,  is  aggra- 
vated, by  the  absence  of  ail  other  motives  than  a  self- 
ish and  cowardly  solicitude  about  the  opinions  of  oth- 
ers. 

It  may  be  asked,  what  other  alternative  is  left  to  a 
person  who  is  challenged,  than  either  to  accept  it,  or 
by  refusing  it,  to  expose  himself  to  obloquy?  A  plain 
unsophisticated  man,  whose  ideas  of  right  and  Wi  ong 
are  derived,  not  from  the  maxims  of  the  world,  but  from 
the  revelation  of  his  Maker,  will  never  be  at  a  loss  to 
discover  his  duty  on  receiving  a  challenge.  If  the  in- 
jury complained  of  be  imJiginary  or  unintentional,  he 
will  frankly  and  honestly  make  such  explanations  as 
truth  and  justice,  and  a  due  regard  for  another's  feel- 
ings, may  require.  If  the  injury  however  be  real,  but 
one  which  he  had  a  right  to  inflict ;  as  the  exposure  of 
the  true  character  of  a  candidate  for  olSce  ,  or  a  cen- 
sure of  public  measures,  he  will  witiiout  hesitation 
avow  and  justify  his  conduct;  asserting  his  riglJts,  and 
refusing  to  be  called  to  account  for  exercising  thejn. 


17 


Should  his  conscience  however  fell  him  that  passion 
or  inadvertence,  had  hetrayed  him  into  unwarrantable 
expressions  or  behaviour,  he  will  with  the  same  fear- 
less aud  simple  adherence  to  truth,  confess  his  error, 
and  acknowledge  his  sorrow  for  it.  Those  who  do 
not  see  in  such  conduct,  more  true  honor  and  magna- 
nimity, than  in  that  sullen  and  revengeful  silence, 
which  is  broken  only  by  the  acceptance  of  a  challenge, 
have  reason  to  fear,  that  their  own  moral  sense  is  la- 
mentably depraved. 

Having  examined  the  disclaimer  made  by  duellists, 
of  malignant  intentions,  we  are  now  to  consider  the 
truth  of  the  assertion,  that  the  practice  we  are  con- 
demning, is  resorted  to  by  them  as  a  measure  of  self- 
defence  ;  it  being  under  certain  circumstances,  indis- 
pensable, not  merely  to  their  reputation,  but  even  to 
tlieir  exemption  from  future  indignities. 

It  may  not  be  improper  here  to  remark,  that  this 
apology  can  in  no  way  avail  the  seconds  to  a  duel,  as 
it  is  not  pretended  that  they  are  compelled  by  a  regard, 
either  to  their  reputation,  or  to  their  personal  safety,  to 
countenance  and  assist  their  friends  in  taking  each  oth- 
er's lives  If  duelling  be  a  crime,  those  w  ho  volun- 
tarily aid  in  its  commission,  cannot  be  guiltless ;  nor 
can  they  find  an  excuse  for  their  conduct,  in  the  fact, 
that  they  harbour  no  resentful  feelings  towards  those 
whom  they  are  leading,  and  not  unfrequently  urging, 
to  mortal  combat.  Human  laws  would  adjudge  him 
guilty  of  murder,  who  should  w  ilfully  furnish  an  as- 
sassin with  weapons  to  eflfect  his  deadly  purpose ; 
and  at  that  a*>vful  tribunal  to  which  we  are  all  hasten- 

C 


18 


ing,  we  have  every  reason  to  believe,  that  the  seconds 
in  a  duel,  will  be  regarded  as  deeply  criminal. 

Were  we  to  assent  to  the  assertion  of  duellists,  that 
their  reputation,  usefulness,  and  even  personal  safety, 
sometimes  require  them  to  give  or  receive  a  challenge, 
it  would  not  follow  as  they  seem  to  suppose,  that  duel- 
ling must  tlierefore  be  justifiable.    There  are  many 
cases  in  wiiich  duty  may  require  us,  not  merely  to 
disregard  the  good  opinion  of  others,  but  even  to  sac- 
rifice our  lives  and  fortunes.    History  aftbrds  us  fre- 
quent illustrations  of  this  truth,  in  the  self  devotion  of 
patriots,  who  have  voluntarily  endured  disgrace,  pov- 
erty and  death,  in  the  cause  of  their  country.  Self- 
defence  does  not  justify  every  act,  to  which  it  may 
prompt :  on  the  contrary,  he  who  to  avoid  the  penal- 
ties due  to  his  crimes,  should  accuse  an  innocent  per- 
son, w  ould  be  justly  and  universally  execrated.  But 
when  we  bring  this  plea  to  the  test  of  christian  mo- 
rality, its  fallacy  is  still  more  obvious.    If  the  com- 
mands of  the  Creator  be  paramount  to  the  opinions  of 
his  weak  and  erring  creatures — if  to  barter  the  soul, 
even  for  the  whole  world,  be  the  extreme  no  less  of 
folly  than  of  wickedness,  then  surely  the  expectation 
of  establishing  a  reputation  for  courage,  or  the  hope 
of  avoiding  future  insult,  cannot  warrant  the  infraction 
of  a  divine  command.    I  he  christian  martyr,  when 
required  to  scatter  a  few  grains  of  incense  upon  the 
altar  of  an  idol,  rejectedwith  disdain  the  proffered  re- 
wards of  compliance,  and  joyfully  endured  all  the  ig- 
nominy and  suffering  with  which  iiis  persecutors  could 
load  him;  rather  than  violate  the  allegiance  he  had 


19 


pledged  to  his  divine  master.    The  opinions,  the  dis- 
tinctions, the  pleasnres  of  the  world  ;  even  the  ties  of 
kindred,  and  of  friendship,  were  unable  to  detain  him^ 
a  voluntary  victim,  from  the  stake  or  the  scaffold. 
Tlie  principles  professed  by  the  duellist,  would  have 
rendered  him,  in  the  early  ages  of  the  church,  a  recre- 
ant apostate.    He  acknowledges  the  world  as  hi^ 
master,  and  to  acquire  or  preserve  its  applause,  is 
ready  to  hazard  his  life  ;  while  he  indignantly  refuses 
to  submit  to  the  slightest  indignity,  from  regard  to  the 
commands  of  his  maker.    Whether  the  conduct  of 
the  martyr,  or  the  duellist,  is  most  consistent  with  true 
honor  and  wisdom,  will  be  doubted  by  few  now,  and 
by  none  hereafter. 

But  the  plea  of  necessity,  is  no  less  false  in  fact, 
than  it  is  unsound  in  principle.    It  is  not  true,  that 
the  refusal  to  give  or  receive  a  challenge,  necessarily 
occasions  a  loss  of  reputation,  or  leads  to  subsequent 
indignities.    The  ancient  judicial  combats  to  which, 
duelling  probably  owes  its  origin,  were  regarded  as 
appeals  to  Heaven,  and  the  issue  was  supposed  to  be 
providential    By  the  laws  of  England,  which  former- 
ly  recognized  these  combats,  the  parties  or  their 
champions,  previous  to  the  combat,  made  oath  of  the 
justice  of  their  cause,  and  the  vanquished  was  deemed 
convicted  of  perjury,  and  was  forever  after  incapable 
of  serving  as  a  juror  or  witness.    Hence  we  may  easi- 
ly conceive,  that  it  might  have  been  disgraceful  to  de- 
cline the  wager  of  battle,  since  the  refusal  might  be 
imputed  to  a  consciousness  of  guilt.    But  modern  du- 
ellists;  far  from  intending  an  appeal  to  heaven,  seem  to 


20 


Forget,  that  the  eye  of  Omniscience  is  resting  upon  them. 
Hence  the  only  motive  for  declining  a  duel,  that  can 
possibly  he  esteemed  disgraceful,  is  a  fear  of  personal 
injury;  and  even  this  motive  is  only  unworthy,  he- 
cause  higher  and  nobler  ones  ought  to  operate.  Still 
M  e  do  not  hesitate  to  assert,  in  contradiction  to  all  the- 
declamation  of  duellists,  that  this  practice  is  not  ne- 
cessary to  preserve  an  honorable  reputation.  Innu- 
merable are  the  instances,  both  in  private  and  public 
life,  of  men  of  high  character,  treating  insults  and  ca- 
lumnies with  silent  contempt,  or  appealing  to  the  laws 
for  redress,  without  experiencing  the  slightest  dimin- 
ution in  their  respeclability  or  influence.^-  Not  a  sol- 
itary case  can  be  adduced,  in  which  a  man  has  low  ered 
himself  in  public  estimation,  by  declining  a  duel  from 
a  sense  of  duty. 

It  may  however  be  urged,  that  although  a  man  pro- 
fessedly religious,  may  be  excused  from  fighting,  yet 
in  other  cases,  a  refusal  can  be  ascribed  only  to  cow- 
ardice, and  must  therefore  of  course,  be  considered 
disgraceful.  And  is  it  the  christian  alone  who  shrinks 
from  shedding  human  blood  ;  or  who  admits  the  ex- 


*A  gentleman  in  the  State  of  New- York,  was  some  years  since  publicly  as- 
saulted by  a  political  opponent,  and  knocked  down — no  challeng-e  ensued, 
but  an  appeal  was  made  to  the  laws,  and  damag-es  awarded,  to  the  amount 
of  g3,0U0.  Not  the  slig-htest  stig-ma  ever  rested  on  the  character  of  this 
g-entleman  for  not  demanding"  the  ordinary  "satisfaction."  In  the  last  war,  he 
held  a  hig'h  commission,  and  was  distinguished  for  his  chivalrous  bravery. 

Another  g-entleman  was  attacked  in  ;ne  of  our  cities,  by  a  person  to  whom 
he  had  given  offence,  and  struck  with  a  cane — His  principles  did  notjjcr- 
mit  him  to  attempt  to  expiate  the  insult  in  the  blood  of  the  aggi-essor ,  but 
so  far  was  his  respect  for  the  laws  of  Ms  Maker  and  his  Country,  from  tar- 
nishing his  reputation,  that  he  was  afterwards  elected  a  Member  of  Congress, 
and  at  the  present  time,  enjoys  in  no  ordinary  degree,  the  esteem  and 
tJonfidence  of  his  fellow-citizens^ 


2i 


istence  and  attributes  of  a  Supreme  Being,  and  the 
possibility  of  a  future  state  of  retribution  ?  Is  the  heart 
warmed  with  piety  towards  God,  the  only  heart  iu 
which  parental  or  conjugal  afiection  ever  glows?  The 
duellist  will  not  readily  make  these  admissions  ;  but 
unless  he  makes  them,  he  must  confess  that  even  an 
infidel  may  have  many  and  powerful  motives  for  de- 
clining a  duel,  wholly  distinct  from  any  apprehension 
of  personal  danger. 

Still  it  is  contendefl,  that  to  avoid  a  duel,  from  a  re- 
luctance to  hazard  life,  is  cowardly,  and  that  he  who 
is  not  restrained  by  religious  principles,  or  family  con- 
siderations^ must  fight  when  insulted  or  challenged,  or 
be  forever  disgraced. 

The  incorrectness  of  this  assertion  is  proved  by  the 
almost  daily  instances,  of  men  passing  over  in  silence 
the  insults  offered  to  them,  without  forfeiting  their 
honorable  standing  in  society:  and  without  pleading 
either  religious  or  domestic  restraints^  as  an  apology 
for  their  conduct. 

That  cowardice  is  disgraceful  is  true,  but  the  ap- 
plication of  this  maxim  to  the  present  subject,  adds 
another  to  the  numerous  instances,  in  which  serious 
errors  have  resulted  from  the  use  of  words  in  a  vague, 
indefinite  sense.  Where  is  the  duellist,  who,  assailed 
by  a  dangerous  disease,  would  think  it  cowardly  to 
save  his  life  by  using  the  prescribed  remedies ;  or 
who,  if  a  spectator  at  a  shooting  match,  would  disdain 
to  stand  without  the  range  of  the  shot,  lest  his  courage 
might  be  suspected  ?  If  a  desire  to  avoid  pain  and 
death  be  cowardly,  all  mankind  are  cowards.    A  du- 


22 


ellist  thinks  it  no  disgrace  to  decline  fighting  with  un^ 
usal  weapons,  because  they  would  expose  him  to  still 
greater  danger.  It  is  not  therefore  an  unwillingness 
to  hazard  life,  or  an  anxiety  to  preserve  it,  that  con- 
stitutes cowardice.  He  alone  is  a  coward,  who  forms 
an  unreasonable  and  exaggerated  estimate  of  danger; 
or  who  refuses  to  encounter  it  at  the  call  of  duty. 
Before  therefore  a  man  can  be  deemed  a  coward,  for 
not  consenting  to  be  a  mark  to  be  shot  at,  it  must  be 
proved,  either,  that  he  exaggerates  the  risk  he  would 
run,  or  that  by  withholding  his  consent,  he  is  violating 
some  paramount  obligation. 

Duelling  is  said  to  afford  ^^satisfaction.''    As  the 
advocates  of  this  practice  are  unwilling  to  admit  that 
they  are  actuated  by  a  passion  so  odious  as  revenge, 
they  profess  to  use  the  term  ^^satisfaction,"  in  the  sense 
of  ^^vindication."    An  insult  has  been  offered,  and  a 
challenge  ensues,  not  avowedly  to  revenge  the  insult, 
but  to  prove  that  it  was  underserved,  and  also  to  pre- 
vent its  repetition.    To  pretend  that  such  is  in  fact, 
the  satisfaction  afforded  by  a  duel,  is  to  insult  the 
common  sense,  and  daily  experience  of  mankind.  The 
insult  we  will  suppose,  is  a  charge  of  want  of  veracity, 
or  integrity.    This  it  is  evident  cannot  be  disproved, 
either  by  giving  a  challenge,  or  by  the  result  of  the 
duel.    If  the  charge  was  believed  by  the  community, 
surely  that  belief  will  not  be  shaken,  by  the  evidence 
afforded  by  the  accused  of  his  disregard  of  morality, 
in  seeking  the  life  of  a  fellow  being — He  who  should 
propose  to  test  the  title  to  his  estate,  by  challenging 
the  claimant,  would  not  be  guilty  of  greater  folly,  than 


lie  who  appeals  to  arms,  to  disprove  a  charge  implica^ 
ting  his  character.  Every  individual  in  society,  is 
exposed  to  the  insults  and  calumnies  of  the  envious 
and  malignant,  and  the  only  rational  and  satisfactory 
vindication,  is  an  exposition  of  facts  and  motives.  No 
duellist  has  ever  yet  been  successful,  either  in  estab- 
lishing, or  maintaining  a  reputation  for  honor  and 
rectitude,  by  figliting  his  enemies  ;  i3or  can  an  instance 
be  mentioned,  in  which  the  favour  and  confidence  of 
the  public  has  been  founded  on  a  duel. 

In  a  disquisition  like  the  present^  it  would  be  inde- 
corous to  seek  for  illustrations  in  private  anecdotes ;  or 
to  cite  the  examples  of  particular  duellists,  in  proof  of 
our  assertions.  All  who  have  been  conversant  with 
the  history  and  characters  of  such  of  our  public  men, 
as  have  engaged  in  duels,  must  have  observed  that  the 
^^satisfaction"  which  they  have  demanded  and  receiv- 
ed, has  in  no  case,  amounted  to  ^^vindication" — that 
the  same  charges  have  been  brought  against  them  af- 
ter the  duel,  as  before,  and  with  equal  confidence  and 
boldness ;  and  that  the  stains  on  their  reputation, 
which  they  had  attempted  to  wash  off  w  ith  blood,  have 
invariably  been  found  indelible. 

It  has  been  maintained,  that  duels  prevent  personal 
indignities  ;  and  that  insults  will  not  readily  be  offer- 
ed to  him,  who  it  is  known,  will  resent  them.  It 
would  indeed  be  a  singular  anomaly  in  human  nature, 
were  it  true,  that  the  indulgence  of  revenge,  and  the 
practice  of  violence,  had  a  tendency  to  promote  per- 
sonal security.  He,  who  is  ready  to  rob  his  neighbour 
of  life;  will  not  probably  feel  much  compunction,  in 


24 


assailing  bis  person,  or  reputation.  If  duelling  did 
indeed  tend  to  prevent  insults,  we  might  expect  that 
those  portions  of  our  country  in  which  duels  are  most 
frequent,  would  he  distinguished  for  the  peaceful  and 
forhearing  demeanour  of  their  citizens  ,  while  others, 
in  which  the  practice  is  unknown,  woujd  he  perpetu- 
ally disturhcd  hy  brawls  and  outrages.  If  however 
we  compare  the  state  of  society  in  IVew-England  for 
instance,  with  that  in  some  other  sections  of  the  union, 
we  shall  be  disposed  to  doubt,  whether  duelling  does 
indeed  exercise  that  soothing  influence  over  human 
passions  which  has  been  ascribed  to  it. 

In  answer  to  all  that  has  been  said,  it  may  be  re- 
plied, that  men  highly  esteemed  in  society  for  their 
virtues  and  honorable  characters,  have  thought  them- 
selves compelled  to  engage  in  duels  ;  and  that  it  is 
therefore  evident  that  the  m:\lignity  and  guilt  attribu- 
ted to  this  practice,  must  be  in  a  great  measure,  only 
imaginary.  Truth  requires  the  admission,  that  men 
of  whom  better  things  might  have  been  expected,  have 
been  concerned  in  duels.  VvA  let  it  be  remembered, 
that  the  criminality  of  an  act,  depends  not  on  the  char- 
acter of  him  who  commits  it,  but  on  the  precepts  of 
Him,  who  is  the  judge  of  all ;  and  likewise,  that  the, 
best  of  men,  are  still  frail,  and  liable  to  be  led  astray 
by  temptation,  and  by  the  violence  of  their  passions. 
The  cause  of  duelling,  will  not  however  derive 
strength  from  an  investigati^m  into  the  characters  of 
its  advocates.  If  a  few  men  of  fair  reputations  hav& 
committed  this  crime,  it  will  not  be  denied  by  such  as 
are  willing  to  yield  to  the  testimony  of  daily  observa- 


25 


tiou,  that  tlie  great  mass  of  tluellists,  are  men  cif  loose 
morals ;  and  are  chiefly  to  be  found  in  the  class  of 
selfish  politicians,  debauchees,  or  gamblers.  Duel- 
lists are  pleased  to  term  their  combats,  ^'aflairs  of  hon- 
or/' but  unless  honor  be  distinct  from  moral  rectitude, 
there  is  reason  to  believe,  that  tbe  number  of  honorable 
duellists,  is  extremely  small.  On  this  point  there  is 
probably  but  little  difference  in  public  opinion,  and 
it  would  be  difficult  to  fiud  a  man,  not  even  excepting 
duellists  themselves,  who  would  regard  the  circum- 
stance  of  liis  friend's  having  fought  a  duel,  an  addi 
tional  inducement  for  appointing  him  the  guardian  of 
his  children,  or  the  executor  of  his  estate. 

If  it  be  admitted  that  duels  have  been  fought,  by 
men  of  bigh  and  deserved  reputation,  it  must  also  be 
admitted  that  this  reputation,  was  neither  acquired^ 
nor  preserved  by  the  practice.  It  is  a  singular  and 
unhappy  mistake,  that  public  opinion  renders  duelling 
necessary.  It  is  unfortunately  true,  that  public  opin« 
ion  does  not  so  far  discountenance  it,  as  to  exclude 
from  public  confidence,  all  who  practice  it ;  but  it  is 
also  true,  that  no  man  is  esteemed  trusted  or  elevated 
to  office,  because  he  is  a  duellist ;  and  he  who  would 
enjoy  the  favour  of  the  public,  must  offer  some  other 
pledges  of  his  character,  than  that  he  has  hazarded 
his  own  life,  and  attempted  that  of  another. 

We  will  in  conclusion,  appeal  to  the  duellist  him- 
self. Some  slight  and  unguarded  expression,  or  some 
uncourteous  action,  which  if  not  noticed  by  himself, 
would  probably  be  unheeded  by  others,  fires  his  re- 
scatment;  and  prompts  him  to  demand  satisfaction: 

D 


26 


his  challenge  is  accepted,  and  instead  of  wreaking  liis 
vengeance  on  his  opponent  he  falls  himself!  Is  it  pos- 
sible for  human  folly  to  exhibit  itself  in  more  glaring 
and  disgusting  colours  ?  The  assassin  if  not  less  guilty, 
is  at  least  far  less  foolish.  He  seeks  revenge  and  ob- 
tains it,  whereas  the  duellist  pursues  his  object  by 
means  v/hich  expose  himself  to  precisely  the  same  fate 
as  that,  to  which  he  is  desirous  of  consigning  his  enemy. 

But  we  will  suppose  that  the  duellist  is  called  to  the 
field  by  an  insult  of  the  most  aggravated  nature — that 
his  aim  is  true,  and  that  the  injury  he  has  received,  is 
effaced  in  the  life's  blood  of  the  offender :  and  now 
we  would  ask  him,  what  is  the  "satisfaction''  he  has 
obtained?  His  character,  so  far  as  its  integrity  or  ve- 
racity was  implicated,  remains  unchanged,  except  that 
it  is  now  stained  with  blood.  He  has  we  admit,  evinc- 
ed a  firmness  of  nerve  w  hich  perhaps  had  never  been 
questioned,  but  which  however  he  possesses  in  com- 
mon with  multitudes  of  the  vilest  of  his  species.  He 
lias  exhibited  a  physical  quality,  which  of  itself  gives 
Jiim  no  claim  to  the  respect  and  confidence  of  his  fel- 
low-men. He  has  indeed  gratified  his  revenge,  he  has 
deprived  his  enemy  of  life,  and  all  its  enjoyments — he 
has  cut  short  the  period  of  probation  allotted  to  him 
by  his  Creator,  for  securing  the  felicities,  and  avoiding 
the  miseries  of  the  eternal  world ;  and  as  far  as  man 
is  permitted  to  judge,  he  has  sent  his  immortal  soul, 
to  those  regions  of  despair,  into  which  hope  never  en- 
ters. He  has  perhaps  entailed  poverty  and  wretched- 
ness upon  an  amiable  woman,  widowed  by  his  hand  ; 
and  upon  a  family  of  helpless  innocents,  robbed  by 


2T 


him,  of  a  fathers  tenderness  and  protection.  Yes,  his 
revenge  is  complete — its  superabundant  fulness  might 
extort  a  smile  from  him,  who  was  a  murderer  from  the 
besinnins:.  But  does  the  duellist  find  no  bitter  insire- 
dients  mingled  in  the  delicious  cup  from  which  he  is 
quaffing?  Alas,  the  revenge  in  which  he  is  delighting, 
has  been  purchased  at  a  price,  in  comparison  with 
which,  all  tiie  wealth,  and  honors,  and  pleasures  of 
the  world,  are  but  as  the  dust  of  the  balance.  When 
the  storm  of  passion  has  subsided — wiien  the  bustle  of 
business,  and  the  excitements  of  the  world  shall  have 
given  place  to  sober  and  retired  reflection,  Conscience 
will  resume  her  empire,  and  her  still  small  voice  will 
appal  his  soul,  by  the  awful  and  tremendous  truths  it 
will  reveal.  The  wretchedness  and  desolation  of 
which  he  has  been  the  author,  will  rise  to  his  view  in 
all  their  aggravated  horrors  ;  and  in  the  silent  watches 
of  the  night,  his  affrighted  imagination  will  hear  his 
brother's  blood  crying  from  the  ground  to  Him,  who 
hath  promised  to  avenge.  As  the  infirmities  of  age, 
and  the  inroads  of  disease,  remind  him  of  his  mortal- 
ity, his  thoughts  will  reluctantly  wander  beyond  the 
tomb,  and  a  judgment  to  come,  will  force  itself  upon 
his  reflections.  Should  divine  grace  soften  his  heart 
and  enlighten  his  understanding,  deep  and  bitter  will 
be  his  penitence,  mingled  however  with  hope  and  con- 
solation ;  but  should  this  mercy  be  denied  him,  the 
agonies  of  dissolution  will  be  aggravated  by  the  re- 
proaches of  conscience,  and  a  fearful  anticipation  of 
the  realities  of  the  unseen  world  ; — and  when  the  last 
pulse  shall  have  beaten;  and  the  last  sigh  been  heaved^ 


28 


his  spirit  will  stand  before  that  Almighty  Being,  whose 
favour  he  had  scorned,  and  whose  most  solemn  in- 
junctions, he  had  deliberately  transgressed.  To  this 
dread  tribunal,  we  will  not  presume  to  follow  him ; 
but  most  earnestly  would  we  entreat  every  duellist  to 
apply  to  himself,  the  momentous  question  put  by  the 
feon  of  God,  ^^  What  will  it  profit  a  man,  if  he  gain 
the  wh;jle  world;  and  lose  his  souL^^ 


9 


